Dalsa sensors are specifically designed with smaller gaps between pixels compared to other sensors. This improves sharpness and smoothness and it also reduces luminance falloff.

I do believe this. From my eyes IQ160 and P65+ has better color accuracy, smoother gradient with sharp noise and sparkling details.DSLR seems use a lot of chip processing to increase sharpness but gradient is more harsh and lack of sparkling.I remember the day D3 launch a guy asked Nikon head japanese engineer about the lens and sensor resolution limit and got the reply.It is infinity limit because of the EXPEED chips.MFB is slow and difficult to handle but the result always pays for the effort. IMHO

I do believe this. From my eyes IQ160 and P65+ has better color accuracy, smoother gradient with sharp noise and sparkling details.DSLR seems use a lot of chip processing to increase sharpness but gradient is more harsh and lack of sparkling.I remember the day D3 launch a guy asked Nikon head japanese engineer about the lens and sensor resolution limit and got the reply.It is infinity limit because of the EXPEED chips.MFB is slow and difficult to handle but the result always pays for the effort. IMHO

Yup the IQ 140 and IQ 160 along with the P40 I owned also seems pretty clear to me its a much smoother looking sensor than anything else. I have owned 3 Dalsa backs and shot a lot with the P65 and even the IQ180 to notice this. I like the Nikon but for me it is a compromise to those backs that I owned. They are not the same and honestly better than any of the Kodak sensor backs that I owned P25 and P30 but they have a bigger pixel pitch too. Folks can rant about functionality to each system on which may work better on a ergo and functionality level but when it comes down to the file , MF is still better and the Dalsa sensor I love w better than even the Kodaks. Not saying I did not like the Kodaks but until I got my hands on my first Dalsa P40 than it took over my preference.

The buying question about file seems to be eluded for a lot of folks and buying more on price, functionality and ergos. One has to decide what your really after and what works better for you. I still contend for myself a tech cam and a Nikon but my work dictates having a 35mm too. If I retired tomorrow. Hell I would have a tech cam and a Leica M and not even think about a Canon or Nikon. But that's me.

BTW I never really found MF that much harder to function for me. Sure heavier and bulkier but I could handle it with pretty good ease even doing PR and Fashion stuff handheld. But I'm also not a whiner on working my butt off either. It's my job. Just sayin

A few retailers, producers and photographers associated with them. No one has to write that MFDB still gives better quality. Just 35mm is getting better and better. You have to accept it . I think that the worst thing that can happen - underestimate the competition

Logged

Best regards,DF

-------------------------------------------WORK HARD AND BE NICE TO PEOPLE-------------------------------------------

The buying question about file seems to be eluded for a lot of folks and buying more on price, functionality and ergos. One has to decide what your really after and what works better for you. I still contend for myself a tech cam and a Nikon but my work dictates having a 35mm too. If I retired tomorrow. Hell I would have a tech cam and a Leica M and not even think about a Canon or Nikon. But that's me.

I agree. Leica M8 or M9 digital has file character same to MFB. Totally difference from DSLR. IMHO

That was sarcasm It was much earlier, a few years before someone came up with this brilliant idea of ​​a "Lunatic" But it was not heard from them - moreover, it's not important. I used to not listen to what is often said on these events. Mostly trying to arouse the feeling that we are ahead of the competition.

Logged

Best regards,DF

-------------------------------------------WORK HARD AND BE NICE TO PEOPLE-------------------------------------------

That was sarcasm It was much earlier, a few years before someone came up with this brilliant idea of ​​a "Lunatic" But it was not heard from them - moreover, it's not important. I used to not listen to what is often said on these events. Mostly trying to arouse the feeling that we are ahead of the competition.

Yes it was and just joking but these events are really marketing events more than anything else and a lot of wish lists are talked about for sure. That's stuff that should really be ignored and not base the company's value on it as well. Look at Leica for instance it's been at least 3 years since they said the S2 would have leaf shutters. Still tapping my feet on that one but that's just one companies promises. You heard of politics right. I'm still waiting for the middle class to get rich. Again joking

Where does it say you have to still own a Phase One camera to post in this forum? There is no rule making this some kind of exclusive club for current owners only

I still own and shoot both Medium Format and large format.

Then how about keeping it constructive ? This constant format evangelism is boring and dreadful. It seems that almost every post in these forums gets hijacked by the same few members about what format is better, or how digital is better than film. Do artists in the oil painting forum have to constantly hear from the guy who converted to watercolor about how much better his medium is ?

How about creating a seperate forum for these endless debates so that the rest of us stay on topic ?

If you are comparing MF against 135 DSLRs I think sensor size matters much more than CCD or CMOS. A larger sensor collects more photons if both are exposed fully ETTR. The larger number of photons should give smoother highlights and midtones. I would expect that reducing exposure 2/3 EV would compensate for the larger surface of the IQ140. The IQ 160 has a larger sensor so you would need to reduce exposure 1.3 eV to compensate.

On the other hand, if you happen to have a Leica M9 around and see that it has smoother highlights and midtones when both Nikon CMOS and Leica M9 are fully exposed to the right and both images are scaled to same pixel dimensions, it would be hard to explain.

I would be very glad to make those experiments, but I have no access to IQ160, P45+, Leica M9 or even to a Nikon D800.

Comparing Dalsa CCD vs Nikon CMOS. Phase 140 and 160 to be exact. Now even Kodak P25 vs Dalsa IQ 160 CCD there is still a crunchier difference but not nearly like the Nikon CMOS vs CCD Dalsa. Yes same raw converters C1 but even ACR and Nikon NX2 it just is not the same kind of file smoothness and look.

I would not disagree for a second that sensor size also plays a role in this but even with a Leica M9 it has the smoothness of the CCD sensors. I agree be nice to pin the M9 against the D800 as well or even like the D600. In all honesty and I will not speak for everyone but only myself. I really gave up interest in comparing these types of things in a large way. I really am interested in more what can I do with this cam results more than anything else and how i can process a file without sweating bullets over it to make it look good. I do like my Nikon D800E a lot and it does get me closer to what I had and not because I own the thing either. That stuff I can care less about that type of bias. All these systems are really good on one hand and also they all have compromises on the other hand. I deal with a lot of people on workshops/forums and most of them are hobbyists and lets be very clear about this they are out to have fun and enjoy themselves but on the other hand they have limited time for photography and as a hobby they want the best image maker in there hands and have fun with it and some just want a decent camera and save some money. But most of them love MF and seriously folks without these hobbyists buying us Pros and OEM's are up a creek without a paddle. These are the folks that drive the market and keep Phase , Hassy and Leica in business. Pros are counted as such a low percent of ownership we really dont count much in regards to the MF market segment. Sure they are designed for us and used by us but we are seriously outnumbered by the hobbyists so these threads I am not sure who the hell the are setup to protect from the big bad wolf of MF OEM's . Its almost a joke, I get daily e-mails from hobbyists asking which back to buy and what system of parts works the best and so on and so on. I love helping them but they are not scared to spend a few dollars to have a really nice tool in there hand that just wallops them with great files. Hell I'm jealous of them as heck they get to spend a lot of money have amazing tools to go out and enjoy themselves. Us Pros are struggling to even breath never mind worry about what gear to buy. LOL I'm half serious on that one. MF is not dead and it will hardly go away anytime soon but i do agree they need to innovate and produce better products just like any other business in the world. Anyway just thought I would add some thoughts to the discussion. You know even though i own part of GetDPI all this stuff is important that good data and good thoughts of folks that work in this business comes across and I respect Michael and this forum. Its not a competition believe me, I could care less but it is about good forums having good people give out good data that is useful to help, learn and share. Heck life is hard enough lets have fun with photography , that is why ALL of us Pros got in this business to begin with because we wanted to make money , have fun and enjoy our life . These struggle debates are stupid, sorry i had to say that. Anyway i went far over my writing limits. LOL

Then how about keeping it constructive ? This constant format evangelism is boring and dreadful. It seems that almost every post in these forums gets hijacked by the same few members about what format is better, or how digital is better than film. Do artists in the oil painting forum have to constantly hear from the guy who converted to watercolor about how much better his medium is ?

How about creating a seperate forum for these endless debates so that the rest of us stay on topic ?

Exactly: comparing sensors of different sizes from different makers and so most likely with different color filter arrays and different needs for demosaicing algorithms, and used behind different lenses .... which leaves no basis for attributing the differences you see to the difference between CCD and CMOS sensor technologies, because of all those other confounding differences. Digging into the physics shows that it makes little sense to attribute those differences to "CCD vs CMOS", since those differences occur almost entirely after light has been "converted" to a "color blind" charge at each photosite.

For a comparison with far less confounding variables, have you compared cameras of the same brand and format, used with the same lenses, with the main difference being CCD vs CMOS? This could for example be done with Nikon, Sony, or Olympus Four Thirds DSLRs from a few years back, and can now or soon be done with Leica M8 vs "new M".

P. S. As to the Leica M9 fitting the "MF/CCD" look, that does not surprise me: I would expect Leica and its CCD sensor supplier Kodak to stay with the CFA designs that Kodak uses for MF sensors (including the one in the Leica S2) and to favor greater color accuracy over greater sensitivity much as MF sensors seem to, while Canon, Nikon and Sony prioritize low light performance more in their CFA designs.

P. P. S. My informal comparison is a sequence of Olympus Four Thirds format cameras from the E-1 (with Kodak Full frame type CCD of the same pixel size as the 40MP, 49x37mm ones for DMF) through the E-510 with a Panasonic CMOS sensor, to the E-M5 with its mystery brand CMOS sensor (most likely Sony). The trend in IQ is unequivocally for the better, even in dynamic range at base ISO sensitivity, often claimed as the last resort of CCD superiority.

Totally agree but the argument is and has been for months this vs that (MF vs D800) by a million posts. So obviously that is the comparison we have to go by. We do not get to chose the apples here so yes the compounding variables are many but still I contend even on a Leica M9 vs any of the CMOS chips from Sony, Canon or Nikon the CCD sensor looks a lot smoother.

Lets say for argument sake we actually tried to get it more apples to apples and test sensor differences than i totally agree with you but this is not really the case here we are stuck with fixed objects like a Nikon D800 vs something different altogether. So yes the science maybe out there in complete left field but that is not what folks are caring about it is this vs that and screw the variables . The question is and has been for months is the D800 better than a MF back the answer is NO it is not and one of those reasons is CCD vs CMOS plus a bunch of other variables . What my general comment is i see a difference between them .Now dont get me wrong i agree with you because i also believe in the science of it. But this is not the real question on hand it is flat out can the D800 beat the MF backs. The question posed to guys like me . Question: Guy what do you think about the D800 since i have been thinking really about a IQ 160 or IQ 140 and a DF and a couple lenses. The money is somewhat the issue but I have been tempted by MF for awhile now. The one answer i would give is this tonal range and smoothness factor. See the problem is folks are not asking about the science but for practical reasons. How do you answer those questions because i will tell you right now I NEVER been asked about the science between 35mm and MF. LOL

Maybe we grown off topic but hopefully you see what i am saying. I know a lot of engineers visit the forums and spout off all the science between sensors and such and it is quite interesting but most people just want to know what to buy and more importantly what do you think will work best for me and what I shoot.

I think the bottom line is that MF isn't going any away. Pentax, Leica, Blad and Phase/Leaf may ultimately lose the pro market to the D800 and its successors, but there are plenty of people who want the ultimate in anything, be it a scarf, jacket, lens, car, or imaging device. Hi end audio or the stupid expensive car market isn't going to disapear just because Audi/BMW/Porsche/M.Benz make cars that are in the same league as a Maybach/Buggtti/McLaren, or that NAD amps are good enough so McIntosh will be gone. There is a reason that VW/Audi makes the Bugatti and Benz makes the Maybach (which is possibly the ugliest car I've ever seen, like a Ford Topaz crossed with gigantism), and that MacIntosh tube amps are still being made. There is always some one who will pay for the "Ultimate [Image] Quality".

In my personal opinion the differences in IQ between the D800e and the older generation of backs is so slight that it doesn't make sense to use the older backs, when the D800 not only offers the similar IQ, but also offers flexibility to get a shot that you couldn't get with a back. Again, I'm talking about the older generation of backs, like the Phase P25/30/45 plus series and the Leaf 54s/75s. Not that those backs are bad, just that the Nikon is that good. Before I get flamed I'm not bashing the backs at all, especially the new Dalsa based backs of which I have no experience.

In my personal opinion the differences in IQ between the D800e and the older generation of backs is so slight that it doesn't make sense to use the older backs, when the D800 not only offers the similar IQ, but also offers flexibility to get a shot that you couldn't get with a back. Again, I'm talking about the older generation of backs, like the Phase P25/30/45 plus series and the Leaf 54s/75s. Not that those backs are bad, just that the Nikon is that good. Before I get flamed I'm not bashing the backs at all, especially the new Dalsa based backs of which I have no experience.

You have both.

When you have a project that meets the following qualifications which do you use?- doesn't require high ISO or video- is personally important to you- doesn't have a tight deadline, and you have the time to do things the way you want to do them